What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Abstract

A long-standing belief is that sign language interferes with spoken language development in deaf children. Brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants, which leads to professionals and organizations advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implantation and spreading misinformation. The existence of one – time-sensitive – language acquisition window means a strong possibility of permanent brain changes when spoken language is not fully accessible to the deaf child and sign language exposure is delayed, as is often standard practice. There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications. This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy. Claims of cochlear implant- and spoken language-only approaches being more effective than sign language-inclusive approaches are not empirically supported. Cochlear implants are an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children. Priorities of deaf child development should focus on healthy growth of all developmental domains through a fully-accessible first language foundation such as sign language, rather than auditory deprivation and speech skills.

The Development of Sensitivity to Grammatical Violations in American Sign Language: Native Versus Nonnative Signers

“…Notes 1 While language deprivation may appear to be a contentious term, it has recently become a common label for the host of language dysfluency issues that tend to appear in deaf children who have absent or inconsistent language exposure (Hall, 2017;Humphries et al, 2016). 2 Both wh-initial and wh-in-situ are accepted in ASL (Lilo-Martin, 2000).…”

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

“…For these reasons, it has been argued that cochlear implants are "an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children" [61] (p. 1). In their call to revisit language policy for deaf children following the rise of cochlear implantation, Knoors and Marshark [4] argue that parents should still be encouraged to sign with their deaf children, especially as a support to the spoken language.…”

“…Indeed, some compelling recent research indicates that the development of sign language as an L1 can support the development of a spoken language L2 [84,85]. In fact, Hall [61] suggests that the "brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants" (p. 1) and thus warns that professionals not spread misinformation by advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implementation. Given the vast research support for avoiding language deprivation, and the very limited research support for withholding sign language, Bley-Vroman's [67] summary of our current understanding of L1 and L2 development seems apt:…”

From Sign Language to Spoken Language? A New Discourse of Language Development in Deaf Children

“…Early implantation and speech therapy can help to enhance the ability to hear and to develop speaking skills but, as Marschark, Machmer and Convertino (2016) wrote, there is no clear answer to what the consequences of the use of a CI can be for the general language development in a deaf child. Admittedly, there are scientific reports on progress in early detection of deafness and in early intervention but, based on the broad variety of study reports, one can articulate two main reasons for which CIs can in some cases lead to language deprivation: Firstly, the CI technology does not automatically provide full access to spoken language; secondly, professionals not only do not recommend sign language for learning by young deaf children but they even advise against it, whereas, after all, sign language is crucial for language development in the early years of life (Hall, 2017;Humphries, Kushalnagar, Mathur et al, 2017;Tomaszewski, in press). However, it is noteworthy that the recent observation of language development in deaf children with CIs reflects their predisposition and a close relationship between the age of implantation and the outcomes achieved for both receptive and expressive use of spoken language.…”

“…This is relevant for two reasons. The first reason is that the majority of deaf children of hearing parents who, as reported by Mitchell and Karchmer (2011), make up 95% of the population of deaf children, may be at risk, not of sensory deprivation (including auditory deprivation) but, first and foremost, of language deprivation in the context of limited access to the full language resources (see Hall, 2017;Hall, Eigsti, Bortfeld et al, 2016;Tomaszewski, in press). The second reason is that among deaf and hard of hearing people, just as among hearing people using spoken language, there are also cases of specific language impairment affecting those people's use of sign language (Morgan, Herman, & Woll, 2007;Marshall & Morgan, 2016;Mason, Rowley, Marshall et al, 2010).…”